I find, the whole Web 2.0 movement is teaching us this is wrong. People are (usually...) social. Information is social. Processes are social. To me that's the big reason why blogs, wiki's, etc are so popular: they connect with reality, with the way people work and think. And there's hardly a technical barrier to get started. No big investments, no long training before you can get to work.

For this reason, the above-mentioned post surprised me. It gave me the idea that you have product development supported by the old, formal tools. This is non-social product development. On the other hand you can 'reach out to the broader network' by socializing these old tools. You just add 'Web 2.0 tools' to it, in a smart way.

But isn't this the wrong way around? If the old tools aren't supporting the social process of product development, they're not supporting much... Product development is not supported by 'a social network organization' as the post says. Product development is the social network, the community, so you will.

And 'Web 2.0 tools' are not just 'forums', 'votes' and managing 'documents. It's much more. Let me turn things around: why do the old tools only support part of the product development process? And therefore see 'web 2.0 tools' as an add-on? (I know vendors that support document management.) Why aren't the old tools 'fun', as the post says? Doesn't this have everything to do with the fact that these tools lost their sense of reality?

So, I don't see a 'risk' in adding 'social' to product development, as is mentioned in the post. (This could lead to less control...) The product development process is social. Taking social from it basically kills it.

Indeed, 'the train has left the station', as the post says. Web 2.0 tools in product development are here to stay. These new tools may even make the old, formal tools obsolete. What would happen, for instance, if Mediawiki (a much used wiki platform in R&D's) would add baselining? (Allowing versioning of a collection of wiki-pages instead of one page.) What then would the real added-value of a Product Data Management System be?

I hope this makes sense. Comments are very welcome.

By the way, talking about social: no commenting on the above-mentioned post is possible...

---

If You Read This and Like It, Tweet This to your Followers:Product Development is Social http://twurl.nl/8rd688 #km #plm

Popular posts

This tweet by Jonathan Phillips (@digitaljonathan) triggered to finalize this post, that's been burning in my draft box.
I've always been intrigued by how unsuccessful many intranets are. And there are all kinds of good reasons for intranet failure. One of the things that is hardly ever mentioned is: Shouldn't the intranet be smaller?
Usually intranets are huge. Lots and lots of pages with lots and lots of content. With complex navigation. The intranet evaluation surveys almost always show employees only use the news page and people finder. But still we build and maintain nice big intranets.

Not only stats point to smaller intranets. There are others reasons as well. I came up with a few. If you have more, just leave a comment. Here's my list:

-user requirements: users don't require large intranet -search/navigation: searching and navigating a small intranet is easier than in a large intranet -mobile: the content of the intranet is easier to take with you on mobile d…

There's not too much fundamental research on Enterprise 2.0. Deloitte recently published interesting research done on enterprise 2.0 implementations and their return-on-investment. In the EU research has also done as well. Study is being done for the European Commission and it was carried out by Tech4i2, IDC and Headshift. What was the goal of the study?Goals of the studyTo provide a clear definition of Enterprise 2.0 is, describe the market and the positioning of EU industry, also in comparison with US and Asia;To analyze the take-up of Enterprise 2.0, the organizational requirements, and the role on the transition to a knowledge based low-carbon economy;To collect evidence on its macro-economic impact, as a market opportunity for the European Software industry and as a productivity tool for European business;To identify and analyse both the direct and contextual challenges, including the need for Next Generation Access and the legal barriers;To analyse and propose possible poli…

I love reading articles about innovation. And every now and then you read one that is very interesting. "Innovation in Turbulent Times" by Rigby, Gruver, Allen (in HBR, June 2009) is one of them.This article takes fashion companies as an example for continuous, year-by-year innovation. And how successful fashion companies are usually led by two people: a left-brainer and a right-brainer. "If you don't have highly creative people in positions of real authority, you won't get innovation. Most companies in other industries ignore this lesson."They extend this to show that successful non-fashion companies have the same kind of leadership. And this kind of leadership is usually also characterized by a long-term relationship.I think this concept can also be extended to teams and projects as well. More often than not, people are good at one or the other: thinking up great concepts or ideas, or, making them. In teams and projects we can learn from this as well, an…